State Government Alone Can Refer Wage-Dues Disputes of Newspaper Employees under Section 17(2)
Introduction
In Sudhir v. Head of Human Resource, Dainik Bhaskar Group (D.B. Corp Ltd.),
the Supreme Court considered whether the Government of Maharashtra could delegate its power
under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees
(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 to officers such as
Additional Commissioners or Deputy Commissioners of Labour.
The dispute arose from references made by such delegated officers to Labour Courts regarding
amounts allegedly due to newspaper employees. Employers challenged the competence of these
references, contending that only the State Government could make them. The Bombay High Court,
through its Nagpur and Aurangabad Benches, accepted that objection. The employees and unions
approached the Supreme Court.
Summary of the Judgment
The Supreme Court held that Section 17(2) does not permit delegation of the
State Government’s power to refer disputes to Labour Courts. While Section 17(1) expressly
permits the State Government to specify another authority for recovery of admitted dues,
Section 17(2) contains no such delegation clause.
Applying the principle unius est exclusio alterius — express mention of one thing
excludes others — the Court concluded that the legislature deliberately allowed delegation
under Section 17(1) but withheld it under Section 17(2).
However, instead of invalidating all pending and concluded proceedings, the Court invoked
Article 142 of the Constitution. It directed the Government of Maharashtra
to revisit all references made by delegated authorities and independently decide whether a
dispute existed warranting reference. If satisfied, the State Government must make a fresh
reference, and proceedings may continue from the stage already reached.
Analysis
Precedents Cited
Samarjit Ghosh v. Bennett Coleman & Co.
This case was central to understanding Section 17 as a “single scheme.” The Court in
Samarjit Ghosh v. Bennett Coleman & Co. had held that Section 17 provides a
sequential mechanism: application for recovery, reference to Labour Court if a dispute arises,
and recovery after the Labour Court’s decision.
The appellants relied on this to argue that delegation should be implied. The Supreme Court
rejected that argument, clarifying that the earlier case did not decide whether the State
Government’s power under Section 17(2) could be delegated.
Pradyot Kumar Bose v. The Hon'ble The Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court
This precedent was used to explain the difference between taking assistance in administrative
work and delegating ultimate statutory responsibility. The Court accepted that a statutory
authority may collect material through officials, but the final decision must be taken by the
authority entrusted with the power unless delegation is legally permitted.
Barnard v. National Dock Labour Board, Board of Education v. Rice, and Local Govt. Board v. Arlidge
These authorities supported the principle that while administrative decision-makers may rely
on assistance from subordinates, they cannot abdicate the ultimate statutory decision-making
function unless the law authorises such delegation.
This case reinforced the rule that statutory powers must be exercised by the body or officer
on whom they are conferred. Delegation or sub-delegation is valid only where authorised
expressly or by necessary implication.
These cases were cited within Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance
Corporation to underline the principle that a delegate cannot further delegate unless
expressly or impliedly authorised.
All India Reporter Karamchari Sangh v. All India Reporter Private Limited
The appellants invoked this case to emphasise that the Working Journalists Act is beneficial
legislation and should be interpreted in favour of employees. The Court accepted the beneficial
character of the statute but held that beneficial interpretation cannot override clear statutory
language.
Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors. and State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy & Anr.
These cases concerned the administrative nature of reference under industrial disputes law.
The Court distinguished them because they did not address whether the power to make a
statutory reference could be delegated to another authority.
This case was distinguished because there the ultimate decision had been taken by the competent
authority and only implementation was carried out by another officer. In the present case, the
delegated officers themselves took the final decision to refer disputes, which Section 17(2)
did not permit.
The Supreme Court disapproved the contrary view of the Allahabad High Court in
Pradhan Prabandhak/Unit Head M/s. Amar Ujala v. State of Uttar Pradesh and approved
the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s view in
Jagran Parkashan Limited v. State of Punjab.
This case was cited for the proposition that ratification generally does not apply to the
exercise of statutory powers. The Supreme Court distinguished it and used Article 142 to craft
a practical solution, requiring fresh satisfaction by the State Government rather than treating
all prior actions as automatically valid.
Legal Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning turned on the text and structure of Section 17:
-
Section 17(1) allows the State Government or an authority specified by it
to issue recovery certificates where amounts are due.
-
Section 17(2) states only that the State Government may refer disputed
questions about amounts due to a Labour Court.
-
Section 17(3) requires the Labour Court to send its decision to the State
Government which made the reference.
The Court held that the express inclusion of delegation in Section 17(1), and its omission in
Section 17(2), was decisive. A reference under Section 17(2) requires the State Government’s
own satisfaction that a dispute exists and deserves adjudication. That ultimate statutory
responsibility cannot be transferred by notification.
Impact
The judgment establishes that delegation of statutory power must be clearly authorised
by the statute. Administrative convenience cannot justify transferring a decision
that the legislature has entrusted to the State Government.
For labour and service law, the decision is significant because it protects the integrity of
statutory reference mechanisms. It also prevents employers from indiscriminately reopening
concluded proceedings where the validity of the reference was not previously challenged.
Since the Working Journalists Act has been repealed by the Occupational Safety, Health and
Working Conditions Code, 2020, the ruling mainly affects pending and past proceedings under
the old Act. The Article 142 directions prevent large-scale disruption while preserving the
statutory requirement of State Government satisfaction.
Complex Concepts Simplified
-
Delegation: Transfer of a legal power from one authority to another.
Here, the Court held that the State Government could not delegate its Section 17(2) power.
-
Functus officio: Once an authority has completed its permitted role, it
has no further power in the matter. The specified authority under Section 17(1) became
functus officio once the claim was disputed.
-
Unius est exclusio alterius: A rule of interpretation meaning that express
mention of one thing excludes others.
-
Article 142: A constitutional power allowing the Supreme Court to pass
orders necessary to do complete justice.
-
Ratification: Later approval of an earlier unauthorised act. The Court did
not apply ordinary ratification but adopted a similar practical approach through Article 142.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that only the State Government can make a reference under Section 17(2)
of the Working Journalists Act. Delegated labour officers could not exercise that power merely
on the basis of a government notification.
At the same time, the Court avoided unsettling numerous pending proceedings. By directing the
Government of Maharashtra to revisit and, where appropriate, freshly approve references, the
Court balanced statutory fidelity with practical justice.